Supreme Court Oral Argument

9:00am - 5:00pm Monday June 2, 2025 to Friday June 6, 2025

This oral argument session will be held in-person at Los Angeles

View the Oral Argument Calendar | Briefs

The following case summaries are issued to inform the public about cases that the California Supreme Court has scheduled for oral argument and of their general subject matter. The descriptions set out below are, in most instances, reproduced from the original news release issued when review in each of these matters was granted, and are provided for the convenience of the public. The descriptions do not necessarily reflect the view of the court or define the specific issues that will be addressed by the court.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2025 — 9:00 A.M.

(1) Olympic and Georgia Partners, LLC v. County of Los Angeles, S280000
#23-135 Olympic and Georgia Partners, LLC v. County of Los Angeles, S280000. (B312862; 90 Cal.App.5th 100; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC707591.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issues: (1) Is income from a hotel occupancy tax rebate an intangible asset exempt from property taxation? (2) Is a “key money” deposit that a hotel received from its management companies at the onset of their contractual relationship exempt from property taxation? (3) Were certain other hotel enterprise assets properly valued for taxation purposes?

(2) Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. et al. v. Public Utilities Commission (Pacific Gas and Electric Company et al., Real Parties in Interest), S283614
#24-63 Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. et al. v. Public Utilities Commission (Pacific Gas and Electric Company et al., Real Parties in Interest), S283614. (A167721; 98 Cal.App.5th 20, mod. 98 Cal.App.5th 659e; Public Utilities Commission; 2212056.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a decision of the Public Utilities Commission. This case presents the following issues: (1) What standard of review applies to judicial review of a Public Utilities Commission decision interpreting provisions of the Public Utilities Code? (2) Did the Public Utilities Commission proceed in the manner required by law, specifically Public Utilities Code section 2827.1, subdivision (b)(1) and (3), when it adopted the successor tariff in Decision Revising Net Energy Metering Tariff and Subtariffs (2022) Cal.P.U.C. Dec. No. D.22-12-056?

(3) Iloff (Laurance) v. LaPaille (Cynthia) et al., S275848
#22-282 Iloff (Laurance) v. LaPaille (Cynthia) et al., S275848. (A163503, A163504; 80 Cal.App.5th 427; Humboldt County Superior Court; CV2000529.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issues: (1) Must an employer demonstrate that it affirmatively took steps to ascertain whether its pay practices comply with the Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders to establish a good faith defense to liquidated damages under Labor Code section 1194.2, subdivision (b)? (2) May a wage claimant prosecute a paid sick leave claim under section 248.5, subdivision (b) of the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (Lab. Code, § 245 et seq.) in a de novo wage claim trial conducted pursuant to Labor Code section 98.2?

1:30 P.M.

(4) People v. Superior Court of Santa Barbara County (Edgardo Ortiz Guevara, Real Party in Interest), S283305
#24-50 People v. Superior Court of Santa Barbara County (Edgardo Ortiz Guevara, Real Party in Interest), S283305. (B329457; 97 Cal.App.5th 978; Santa Barbara County Superior Court; 1183843.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issues: (1) Do the revised penalty provisions of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Pen. Code, § 1170.12) apply when a defendant is resentenced pursuant to Senate Bill No. 483 (Pen. Code, § 1172.75)? (2) Whether defendants qualify as “presently serving an indeterminate term” under Penal Code section 1170.126 if they were serving such a term on the effective date of the statute, or only if they are currently serving such an indeterminate term.

(5) People v. Fletcher (Larry Lee) et al., S281282
#23-188 People v. Fletcher (Larry Lee) et al., S281282. (E077553; 92 Cal.App.5th 1374; Riverside County Superior Court; BAF2001566.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses. The court limited review to the following issues: (1) Does Assembly Bill No. 333 amend the requirements for a true finding on a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)–(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)) and a prior serious felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)), or is that determination made on “the date of that prior conviction”? (See Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (d)(1) & 1170.12, subd. (b)(1).) (2) Does Assembly Bill No. 333 (Stats. 2021, ch. 699), which modified the criminal street gang statute (Pen. Code, § 186.22), unconstitutionally amend Proposition 21 and Proposition 36, if applied to strike convictions and serious felony convictions?

(6) People v. Aguirre (Jason Alejandro), [Automatic Appeal], S175660
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.

THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2025 — 9:00 A.M.

(7) People v. Barrera (Marcos Esquivel), [Automatic Appeal], S103358
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.